Wolf wrote that she has a "creeping concern" that Snowden "is not who he purports to be," mostly because Wolf expects leakers to be disheveled, inarticulate and litigious (apparently based on her experience with Jullian Assange), and Snowden is none of these things. "To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points," she wrote. And his girlfriend "happens to pole-dance?" - very suspicious! "It is actually in the Police State's interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled," she wrote. Ergo: Snowden is likely a government stooge.

The missive was rightly mocked online...

How surprising that a mainline media outlet carefully frames this story as "conspiracy lunatics will jump at anything". Salon's not saying that any of their arguments are unsupported, just that they "sound crazy, LOL". The number one fact in favour of the triple agent theory is that he is still alive, when they can get you anywhere and leave no proof. I wouldn't even be surprised if the American and Chinese intelligence communities are quietly collaborating on this to reinforce the necessity of their respective total-domestic-surveillance states.

It's easy to see why the UFO peeps would be interested in this story, but I would imagine that if such information exists on UFOs in our government, it would be stored on servers that are not connected to any networks.

Perhaps the most prominent Snowden truther is Naomi Wolf...People were a little surprised Friday when the prominent feminist author and activist posted a lengthy essay on her Facebook page wondering if Snowden may actually be a plant from "the Police State."

LewDux:MNguy: EdNortonsTwin: Conspiracy theory is a zero sum game. You're considered either a crackpot, or if you get one right from time to time, you're a crackpot who got lucky; a broken clock as it were.

I'll go ahead and say it - some of the thing A Jones dug up in the early days were eye openers, but he's just become a used cars salesman at this point.

TWA flight 800 88

0 on top of 0 - 8. Which stands for Heil Hitler, Prescot Bush helped Hitler

My read on this is that China is tired of the USA exposing dissidents and human rights abuses with asylum seekers, etc, so they bought their own who is exposing US human rights abuses.

The kid was willing to work with these Chinese government, which is terrible, because he wanted to expose something he disagrees with but isn't brave enough to do it with the most serious consequences.

Arcanum:My read on this is that China is tired of the USA exposing dissidents and human rights abuses with asylum seekers, etc, so they bought their own who is exposing US human rights abuses.

The kid was willing to work with these Chinese government, which is terrible, because he wanted to expose something he disagrees with but isn't brave stupid enough to do it with the most serious consequences and face Guantanimo.

MNguy:EdNortonsTwin: Conspiracy theory is a zero sum game. You're considered either a crackpot, or if you get one right from time to time, you're a crackpot who got lucky; a broken clock as it were.

I'll go ahead and say it - some of the thing A Jones dug up in the early days were eye openers, but he's just become a used cars salesman at this point.

TWA flight 800

I'll watch the TWA Flight 800 documentary, but unless the the government officially re-opens the investigation admits there was a cover-up - it's all just "loose change" so to speak. It will just fade quietly in to the night like 911 consp theories.

Arcanum:The kid was willing to work with these Chinese government, which is terrible, because he wanted to expose something he disagrees with but isn't brave enough to do it with the most serious consequences.

Anyone who sees what's been done to Bradley Manning and wants to avoid experiencing that themselves is not cowardly, they're just sane. Cowardice would be continuing to help your government treat its own citizens like hostile insurgents.

con·spir·a·cy[kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.1. the act of conspiring2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Can this not just be looked at at face value? Why all of this preposterous stuff? He's quite clear in the original video interview what his intentions are. If this were a CIA/NSA/Chinese bought whatever person, wouldn't he be a little more forthcoming on his "agenda"?Meanwhile the NSA has publicly admitted the bulk of what he has said was true.

So why are we spending time on the messenger, when we really should be having a conversation about the message? Why has there been such little formal response to this from all members of government?No matter if it's legal or not legal, open large scale forums need to be taking place.

/ Does no one find it strange that people will take to the streets for the 2nd amendment, but the 4th and 5th may be at risk and people shrug or make up excuses?

No Such Agency:Arcanum:The kid was willing to work with these Chinese government, which is terrible, because he wanted to expose something he disagrees with but isn't brave enough to do it with the most serious consequences.

Anyone who sees what's been done to Bradley Manning and wants to avoid experiencing that themselves is not cowardly, they're just sane. Cowardice would be continuing to help your government treat its own citizens like hostile insurgents.

Bears repeating. This kid deliberately threw away any possibility of normalcy for the rest of his life, pissing off some of the most powerful and least forgiving people on earth in the process, for the sake of doing what he thought was right.

You can disagree with the ideals or the methods. But pretending that's not pretty ballsy? Wow.

huntercr:So why are we spending time on the messenger, when we really should be having a conversation about the message? Why has there been such little formal response to this from all members of government?

Most people are idiots who like Toddlers in Tiaras and Real Access Hollywood. The rest of us aren't picking up the slack like we used to.

Magnanimous_J:Not that I buy it, but the idea of the CIA and the NSA having an escalating inter-agency tiff is kind of interesting.

Mort Sahl wrote in 1976 that the Pentagon Papers episode was the CIA undermining the U.S. Army:

Daniel Ellsberg, who worked at the Rand Corporation, a CIA-funded group, was in and out of the Marine Corps for thirteen years and suddenly arrived and said he's been redeemed and accused the Army of ruling the country. The Army. Not the CIA. The Army. Who does the CIA speak for? The American financial establishment. And where did Ellsberg speak? He spoke in the New York Times which is more of a financial tribunal than the Wall Street Journal. if the truth were known, or if the papers were read from cover to cover. Ellsberg was immediately accepted by the liberals, who don't ever ask for credentials. The left is lovely: You say to them, "I'm turning you in," and they say, "Will you ride to the station with me?"Ellsberg was immediately accepted because the liberals were starved for heroes, obviously. He went on to discredit the Army, and the concert goes on in the Times, an orchestrated scenario. Officers' enlistments are down; the soldiers smoke dope; officers are being fragged by their subordinates. A discreditation of the Army. At the same time, coincidentally, General Abrams caught the Green Berets working for the CIA, killing a double agent and dropping his body in a mail sack in a river in Vietnam, and he said, I don't want any SS in my Army; at which time the CIA said, we're going to drop a real octopus on you, which was My Lai.When the Warren Report was printed in the New York Times, it was printed in one day and buried. The "Pentagon Papers" were printed piecemeal, day by day, as the group that printed it waited to be stopped by the government. Wasn't it the lawyer for the New York Times who said in the Supreme Court hearing, "Why don't you define espionage for us so we don't violate the tenets and make it more restrictive?" And Justice Douglas replied by saying, "I find this a very odd argument for a defense counsel." Defense counsel being Alexander Bikel, who wrote that anybody who didn't accept the Warren Commission must have corrupt reasons.

Sahl's still alive. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about Snowden.